ABC's Election Analyst blogs on the wonderful world of Australian Elections.

March 12, 2014

Preference Recommendations for the 2014 SA House of Assembly Election

While polls indicate that the overall result of the South Australian election will be determined by the relative first preference vote for the Labor and Liberal Parties, the outcome in specific electorates will be determined by flows of preferences.

While we often fall into the shorthand of talking about parties and candidates 'directing' preferences in lower house seats, it is voters that determine preferences by the numbering they use on their ballot papers. Parties and candidates try to influence voters by handing out recommendations on how to vote material, but in the end it is up to voters whether they choose to follow recommendations or not.

A candidate's ability to have their recommendation followed by voters is heavily dependent on the capacity of the candidate to put a how-to-vote into the hands of as many voters as possible. With most candidates, the more how-to-votes distributed to voters, the stronger the flow of preferences from voters following the recommendation.

This is also true at South Australian elections, except that a provision concerning the registration and display of how-to-vote material means that more voters are exposed to how-to-vote recommendations than is the case in other jurisdictions.

In South Australia, registered how-to-votes are displayed on the wall of the voting partition where voters fill in their ballot papers. Directly in front of the voters are samples of how each candidate recommends ballot papers be filled in with preferences.

As I explained in a previous post, data on preferences from the 2010 election indicates that minor parties and independents are able to produce strong flows of preferences at South Australian elections. It does not make a lot of differences to parties such as the Greens that already campaign strongly outside polling places, but Family First has shown a greater ability to influence preferences at South Australian elections than it has at Federal elections.

If you are interested in how preferences might influence the 2014 South Australian election, this post summarises all the preference recommendations that will be displayed in voting partitions on Saturday.

The Greens

The Greens are contesting all 47 electorates. In 23 electorates the Greens have recommended that preferences be directed to Labor ahead of the Liberal Party. In the other 24 electorates, the Greens have recommended vote '1' Green and then leaves it to the voter to make up their own mind on the rest of their preferences.

This did not make much difference to preference flows at the 2010 election, when Green preferences flowed 70.9% to Labor where directed, but still 65.3% in electorates where no recommendation was made.

The 23 seats where the Greens have recommended preferences to Labor includes 18 of the 26 Labor held seats, including all 14 seats under 9%. Preference to Labor ahead of Liberal also applies in two of the three marginal Liberal seats, Adelaide and Dunstan. The other three seats favouring Labor over Liberal are Independent held Fisher, Frome and Mount Gambier, though in all three electorates the sitting Independent is put ahead of Labor.

Family First

Family First is contesting 42 of the 47 electorates. In 35 the recommendation is to put the Liberal Party ahead of Labor.

There are five seats where Family First has recommended preferences for Labor. These are Croydon, Playford, Ramsay, Taylor and West Torrens. All are Labor seats with margins greater than 10%, and all are held by Labor MPs from the party's socially conservative right faction.

In two further seats Family First has issued a split ticket showing how to give preferences to either Labor or Liberal. The most interesting is marginal Newland (2.6%), held by the Right's Tom Kenyon. The second is Torrens (8.2%), a seat that could be at risk for Labor with the retirement of sitting Labor MP Robyn Geraghty.

In 2010, Family First preferences flowed 67.9% to the Liberal Party where recommended to Liberal. Where recommended to Labor, the preferences reversed and flowed 64.5% to Labor.,

Such flows would have little impact on the result in the five safe Labor seats where the recommendation is to Labor in 2014. But if the split ticket recommendations in Newland and Torrens weaken the flow of preferences to the Liberal candidates, it could be important for Labor's chances of holding the seats..

Dignity for Disability.

Dignity is contesting seven seats. In five it is recommending preferences for Labor (Adelaide, Dunstan, Elder, Little Para and Waite), while in two they flow to the Liberals (Heysen, Unley). In 2010 Dignity recorded very low percentage votes and demonstrated very weak flows of preferences.

Independents

Of the 11 Independents contesting 10 electorates, none are recommending preferences to Labor.

Three recommend preferences to the Liberal Party over Labor. These are Melita Calone in Lee, Steve Davies in MacKillop and Danyse Soester in Wright. These preference recommendations may have an impact in Lee and Wright. The FREE Australia candidate in Ashford has also recommended preferences to the Liberal Party, potentially important in a marginal seat.

Two other Independents have recommended '1' and then voter choose preferences themselves. These are Bob Such in Fisher and former Federal Liberal MP Kym Richardson in Kaurna. Two candidates have lodged no how-to-vote, Andrew Stanko in Enfield and Bob Nicholls in Goyder.

Two-Candidate Contests

There are six electorates that may not finish as contests between Labor and Liberal and the preference recommendations for these contests are as follows.

Fisher: Labor and the Greens have recommended preferences for Independent Bob Such. Family First recommend preference for the Liberal Party.

Frome: Labor and the Greens have recommended preferences for Independent Geoff Brock. Family First recommend preference for the Liberal Party.

Mount Gambier: Labor and the Greens have recommended preferences for Independent Don Pegler. Family First recommend preference for the Liberal Party.

Lee: It is possible that Independent Gary Johanson may outpoll the Liberal Party. If this were to happen, Green preferences favour Labor, but Family First, the Liberals and Independent Melita Calone favour Johanson.

The National Party are contesting Goyder and Hammond. In both seats, Labor and Family First have directed preferences to the Nationals ahead of the Liberals, while the Greens have issued a '1' only ticket.

Comments

While I agree that preferences are one way that individuals can show support or not directed to those they support.
However you must vote.
If enough spoil their vote it is just "informal" and if that number is high, then the voters enjoy an "education" how to vote campaign.
However in Thailand they have one box that indicates I have voted, but do not vote for anyone on the ballot.
So the only option we have is vote informal, when many I suggest want a "Non Vote" option, like Thailand.
While I cannot comment for all, I do know that for a small number almost 100% of those I have spoken to today, have indeed voted informal. This is as close as you can come to indicating your preference, or indeed non preference with any candidate. In other countries you can express this by not voting, but our democracy does not allow us that basic freedom of choice.
however I cannot see this ever changing as this option will not be popular among out "elected" representatives.

A follow up question (the election isn't over yet, but just as a forethought), if the Libs win a 2PP of around 53% and still aren't able to form government, do you expect the SAEC to alter the seats more in line with 2010 and 2014 elections to allow the winner of the 2PP to form government?

And again, do you think they've acted in a partisan fashion to protect the Labor majority?

COMMENT: Yes. There will be a stronger argument that the elections represent a significant shift in geographic distribution of party support.

I am not sure why people cannot understand that in order to win an election a party or coalition of parties has to win a majority (TPP) in a majority of seats. Just because 1 party wins massive majorities in a few seats as evident in MacKillop this does not mean that that party should hold government. How would the electoral commission factor these extreme numbers into boundary redistributions?

COMMENT: The problem is actually caused by the marginal seats. These seats have now refused to budge for two elections in a row.

It seems counter-intuitive to me that the Labor candidate got 34.1% of the vote, the Greens candidate got 6.2% of the vote, and the former Labor and Greens MP, now Independent, got 18.7 % of the vote - a grand total of 59% of the primary vote - but the Liberal candidate is ahead!

I know that Hanna produced a split ticket and the Greens would have preferenced Hanna before Labor, but surely these votes would have still flowed back to the ALP ahead of Liberal, given these would mostly be progressive voters?

Please explain, as Pauline famously asked! :-)

COMMENT: The result is determined by examining the preferences that people put on their ballot papers. You are adding first preferences votes together. The Electoral Commission examines and counts the ballot papers. Clearly a lot of Hanna voters did not give preferences to Labor.

A lot is being made concerning the percentage of the vote received by the two major parties. My observations would suggest that in four regional seats - Frome, Flinders, Stuart & Giles; the ALP did little more than "nominate a candidate" in three of these seats i.e. Frome, Stuart & Flinders where they had no chance of winning or even getting close to winning. In Giles however they did "fight" and of course won.

Doesn't this suggest that to talk simply about the percentage of the vote is an invalid argument because it's all about seats and in reality it's all about marginal seats that ALP members fight very hard to retain?

COMMENT: With the brief exception of Tasmania in the 1950s, the appointment of a government after an election in Australia has always been dependent on the number of elected members, not the votes. Governor Peter Underwood made explicit mention that votes do not form part of the decision making process of a Governor in his comment on re-appointing the Bartlett government in Tasmania in 2010.